Obama Overflies Iraqi Mass Graves

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama overflew the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Najaf today, where the mass graves for an estimated 240,000 victims of sectarian violence killed since 2007 were visible even from altitude.

Senator Obama was on his way to meet with American soldiers completing the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in Kuwaiti ports, while miles away Iranian and Saudi delegations were meeting in an emergency summit in Kuwait City in an effort to keep the Iraqi Civil War from boiling over into open regional conflict. Both sides have accused the other of providing advanced weaponry and training, while faulting American leaders for the bloody collapse of the Iraqi state.

Except, of course, none of that really happened.

Barack Obama is in Baghdad today for one reason and one reason only: the current President wisely ignored the first-term Senator's repeated calls to abandon the Iraqi people, and instead listened to advice to change commanders, strategy, and tactics in Iraq. The resulting COIN doctrine implemented by American forces under General David Petraeus and a surge of American forces into Iraq coincided with a popular Sunni revolt against the al Qaeda-led insurgency known as the Awakening movement, which was followed by the fracturing of the Shia Madhi Army and other militant groups.

If we had listened to Barack Obama in 2002, Saddam Hussein (or his murderous son Qusay) would still be brutally repressing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, and some of the world's most accomplished terrorists (such as Abu Abbas, 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) would still be calling Iraq home. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.

If we had listened to him in 2005-2006 when things were at their worst, then the nightmare scenario of an open Iraqi civil war fought with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Iran and verging on a wider regional war would possibly be playing out. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.

So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort.

Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:57 AM

Comments

1 Dang straight, CY ... bookmarked for quoting.

Posted by: Rich Casebolt at July 21, 2008 11:53 AM (FL9H9)

2 "overflew the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Najaf today, where the mass graves for an estimated 240,000 victims of sectarian violence killed since 2007 were visible "

Just what in the hell are they talking about? There is NO SUCH THING visable except for what one would call the 'standard' Baghdad cemetary... granted it's a bit full but having overflown the area for the past 5 years, I call shenanigans on this one...

Posted by: Big Country at July 21, 2008 12:25 PM (niydV)

3 This could have easily happened. I sort of wonder what it was about Saddam and Qusay that so endeared him to Barrack that B. Hussein opposed ousting this wonderous pair? We know as an Illinois state senator, BO did not have access to intel those on in the U.S. Congress had. Maybe his judgement was based upon the teaching of William Ayers and Jeremiah A. Wright. If you are going to run a campaign based upon judgement, it best be demostrated as good judgement as opposed to what Obama has displayed. Cy depicted here, an accurate picture of what would have happened if the faulty judgement of Obama the first had been followed.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 21, 2008 01:00 PM (jseGi)

4 BC:

Except, of course, none of that really happened.

The first two paragraphs are satire, my friend.

Posted by: Mark at July 21, 2008 01:10 PM (w/olL)

5 Sorry I didn't pick up on that... it just sounded like something the Lamestream Media might put out there...

Posted by: Big Country at July 21, 2008 04:21 PM (niydV)

6 If Barack had had his way, though, it very easily could have.

Thousands of Iraqis are alive today because we shed our blood to protect them.

I don't know (and honestly don't care) what lefties think about that, I am darned proud of it.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 21, 2008 05:33 PM (e+Bm0)

7 ...where the mass graves for an estimated 240,000 victims of sectarian violence killed since 2007 were visible even from altitude.

Please don't even joke about this. I still hear people quote the Lancet numbers as though they were the gospel truth. Engram at BackTalk has being doing the best analysis on this. See his latest post Casualties in Iraq, June 2008 .

Posted by: huxley at July 22, 2008 07:14 AM (KrCIM)

8 Consider this, though: if Saddam were still in power, BHO might well be going to Iraq anyway, to pay homage to the most powerful man in the Middle East. With his oil revenues, and with his WMD programs restarted and in full swing, having crushed the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ia in the south, feared by his neighbors and courted by the West, Saddam might well have had the world economy by the short hairs.

Obama's supporters may well believe that his Magic Unicorn would have intervened to prevent such a thing from happening. But here on planet Earth, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Posted by: Brown Line at July 22, 2008 07:14 AM (OMiLl)

9 Saddam had no problem hosting useful idiots. He would have loved having the junior senator from Illinois be used for his own propaganda. Obama would be running for president right now claiming that our sanctions had killed a million or more Iraqi children.

Posted by: john b at July 22, 2008 07:39 AM (6Cp0G)

10 BHO's big fallback answer is that he opposed the invasion at the start. In response, nobody has really cornered him on what the status of the Middle East would be now with Saddam still ensconced.

Posted by: edh at July 22, 2008 07:47 AM (zeNt+)

11 What is often left out of the picture is that everyone want most if not all the troops out of Iraq. Obama's plan is arbitrary, get them out ASAP even if it means snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The current plan is to remove the troops when they are no longer necessary and Iraq is stable. The current plan seems be working so perhaps the prophet of change should recognize this.

Posted by: Bill K at July 22, 2008 07:55 AM (Du6dT)

12 Bill K, your comment is right on. Isn't it surreal that he isn't doing this?

Posted by: K T Cat at July 22, 2008 08:32 AM (ML6gQ)

13 Actually the problem with us doing nothing in 2002-3 is that Saddam would now be getting a $400 million-a-day oil income, sanctions would be off (we need the oil), and he'd be racing the Iranians for the bomb. Oh, yeah, and killing Shiities and Kurds, but no one would say a word.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at July 22, 2008 09:36 AM (roJck)

14 "Oh, yeah, and killing Shiities and Kurds, but no one would say a word."

Out of sight, out of mind. That seems to be many the motto of many lefties concerned with "human rights". They agonize over the people who have died in the last few years but act like those hundreds of thousands who died under Saddam's reign never existed. Was there ever one worldwide march about them? Not hardly.

Posted by: kcom at July 22, 2008 09:53 AM (GjT73)

15 Oh, and where are they, and where have they been, on Zimbabwe?

Posted by: kcom at July 22, 2008 09:54 AM (GjT73)

16 Doesn't Abdul Yasin still call Iraq home? Has anyone ever found this chemical mixer for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?

Posted by: Frank Warner at July 22, 2008 10:26 AM (EWzXW)

17 Why do people think Saddam would have remained in power? Isn't it likely that one of his sons and/or generals would have overthrown him by now? Given what we know about them, isn't it very likely that having Uday or Qusay in charge would have been much worse than having Saddam in power and the result would have been more than civil war, but a regional conflict. (Given that Saddam was ready to restart his weapons programs and we know he had over 500 tons of yellowcake [that's now been purchased by and delivered to a Canadian company], isn't it likely that Iran would have accelerated their nuclear program and we'd now be on the precipice of a nuclear exchange?)

Posted by: Joe at July 22, 2008 05:43 PM (FyFB2)

18 Uh, Joe... Saddam had survived as President of Iraq since 1979. There's no evidence that he'd let the reins of power slip from his hands enough for anyone not completely loyal to him to get within artillery range of his exalted tuckus.

Or do you have some secret evidence the rest of us poor schmucks aren't privy to?

Posted by: C-C-G at July 22, 2008 05:52 PM (e+Bm0)

19 Why do people think Saddam would have remained in power? Isn't it likely that one of his sons and/or generals would have overthrown him by now?

That's what the shredders were for. If there's one thing we should give GWB credit for it's eliminating hte need to deal with Uday Jr. in the 2060 election.

Posted by: Bandit at July 24, 2008 09:35 AM (/R+6i)






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0171 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0134 seconds, 27 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.